Indigenous and Megarian Relations in Megara Hyblaea

Photo: Aerial view of Megara Hyblaea, Courtesy Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Megara_Hyblaea_vista_dall%27alto.jpg 

Indigenous and Megarian Relations in Megara Hyblaea

By Genevieve Myers

 

Megara Hyblaea is often hailed as the Greek colonial archetype of the ideal relationship with indigenous populations. In many ways, this is true. Megara Hyblaea is one of the first examples of a Greek colony founded by invitation of the local people rather than established by force. There can be no doubt that colonists interacted peacefully with the indigenous Sicles. However, to champion Megara Hyblaea as one of the few prime examples of “good relations” with native people is misleading.¹ Granted, as far as the spectrum of Greek colonization is concerned, its coexistence of colonists and the indigenous is a feat in itself. However, the ambiguity of the term “good relations” is at the core of potential misinterpretation of this historical relationship. “Good relations” could imply the active integration and mutual contribution of Greek and Indigenous cultures, or it could simply indicate their peaceful, separate coexistence. While Megara Hyblaea does exemplify one of the least antagonistic narratives of colonization with indigenous people, it was not a haven of cultural hybridization and there was continual separation of groups throughout its existence. In light of this peaceful separation, cultural relationships at Megara Hyblaea represent a period before the eventual emergence of a Hellenistic (Greek) identity, but the existing dynamics during the Megarian time period may suggest their eventual emergence.

Importantly, Greek colonization was far from the modern notions that we possess today. It is distinctly removed from “statist and imperialistic connotations.”² Relying mainly on the historical account of Thucydides, the prominent Athenian historian and general, one can better understand the context of indigenous groups and Greek colonization on the island of Sicily prior to the founding of Megara Hyblaea. Archaeological evidence indicates the Sicles possessed Greek products, such as pottery, meaning that they had made contact with the greater Mediterranean world before the arrival of colonists. Additionally, the colonies of Naxos (734 BCE), Syracuse (733 BCE), Leontini (729 BCE), and Catane (729 BCE) were all founded on the island of Sicily before Megara Hyblaea in 728 BCE.³ Thus, the Sicles were familiar with the Greeks before the Megaraians ever landed on the island. 

As the name suggests, the founders of Megara Hyblaea owe the first part of their title to the Greek metropolis of Megara Nisaea, a Megarian port on the coast of the Saronic Gulf. “Hyblaea” refers to the Sicle king Hyblon, who ruled over one of the two indigenous groups that lived in Sicily. However, this seemingly symbolic combination of Sicle and Greek terms arose more out of necessity than friendship. Both the Greek colonists and the population of Sicles ruled by Hyblon were under direct pressure from competing Greek colonies in the region, resulting in the emergence of Megara Hyblaea.

While the presence of Greeks in Sicily has never been a story of political peace and harmony, there was unrest prior to the founding of Megara Hyblaea on more than one front. The two groups of Sicles on the island were locked in competition and conflict. Furthermore, the existing colonies of Syracuse and Leontini had driven Sicles out of their homeland. The Megarians, who had been on the hunt for land of their own and were recruited by the Chalcidians at Leontini to drive out the unwanted Sicles, were then driven out themselves and had no land on which to establish their colony.⁴ Therefore, both Hyblon and the Megarians were under threat from Greek colonies that already existed on the island. Hyblon’s previous experience with the Greeks in trade and warfare led him to believe he was more likely to benefit from the Greeks as allies than enemies. Therefore, he invited the Megarians to settle on a portion of Sicle land: “It was mutual need and the prospect of mutual benefits that led the native king to make his offer and the Greeks to accept.”⁵ 

In the wake of this need, a new trust and understanding was undeniably built between the Sicles and Megarians. The land that Hyblon ceded was exposed and would not have been easy to defend. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Greeks trusted the Sicles to not attack them. Additionally, King Hyblon was extremely welcoming and inviting to this particular colony regardless of his motives. Both cultures came to rely on and trust each other, and there is no evidence to refute that their friendship exceeded what the circumstances necessitated. They created a society in which both cultures lived and worked in peace with one another in response to immediate circumstances combined with trust built over time.

The foundation of Megara Hyblaea was based on the principle of coexistence between the Sicles and the Greek colonists. Crucially, this does not imply cultural hybridization. Greeks in Megara Hyblaea were distinctly Greek, and the Sicles were distinctly Sicle. The colonists established elements of society on the island that are considered essential to the Greek identity in the modern study of history. Specifically, the notion of urban planning and civic organization used in the construction of Megara Hyblaea can be connected directly to the much later formation of Greek cultural superiority.⁶ These principles were also reflected in contemporary Greek cities at the time, laying the foundation for a unified Greek identity. However, there remained great variability in what being Greek meant at this point, and Megara Hyblaea does not conform to the extent of the rigid future “Hellenistic” standards.⁷ While undoubtedly a Greek site, it does not fit Vincent Scully’s model for a Greek site landscape in its specific architectural and natural relationships.⁸ This shows that the Greeks who lived in Megara Hyblaea were less concerned with collective Greek identity, or whatever semblance of that existed at the time, than promoting their individual colonial identity as Greek people. They did not abide by a formulaic approach to cultural identity despite their lack of integration with the Sicles. 

The evidence of Sicle culture is less distinct. As we lack specific information from primary sources on their customs and society, their presence is more difficult to pin down compared to the notorious markings of Greek culture. In the archaeological record, evidence of Sicles is mainly condensed to the presence of “metal Italic objects,” found in and around grave sites.⁹ We rely mostly on the written record of the ancient Greek historians Thucydides and Diodorus Siculus to pinpoint Sicle presence in Megara Hyblaea as we lack equivalent surviving indigenous records of this interaction. This severely limits our ability to make conjectures about the relationship between these two cultures as we are limited both in number of sources and variety of viewpoints. However, it is certain that the Sicles lived alongside the Greeks in and around Megara Hyblaea throughout its existence. The question then becomes: what did these interactions look like?

In order to assess the extent of cultural relationships, hybridity, and friendship between the Greeks and the Sicles in Megara Hyblaea, one must turn to the necropolis, or graveyard, which provides a relatively undisturbed and culturally rich environment from which to collect data. In many cultures, treatment and custom surrounding the dead is central to their belief system. The importance of burial in an individual’s path to the afterlife and in remembering their achievements past death in Greek culture specifically is well documented. Even at this premature stage in the development of Greek national identity, there was already a strong respect for the dead and the burial process. The Sicles had their own customs and rituals regarding death, so the way an individual was laid to rest often reveals their cultural ethnicity. This places the necropolis as a crucial piece of evidence in the dissection of cultural behavior in Megara Hyblaea.

Specifically, it is vital to investigate the necropolis for signs of intermarriage or cross-cultural practices between Greeks and Sicles, as that would be a central avenue for cultural hybridization. Intermarriage would also be particularly evident in the archaeological record. The nature of Greek colonization necessitates colonists either bring along their wives, ship over wives after the colony is established, or travel in groups of men who will then find wives at their new settlement. Considering the foundation story of Megara Hyblaea and the colonists’ long process of finding territory to settle, one may assume that Greek women were not brought along for the difficult journey. Thus, the colonists probably had to initially find wives among the native population, creating a cultural and social bond that would have a distinct impact on the relationships within Megara Hyblaea. Looking at the necropolis, variations in the funerary treatment and burial of the women in Megara Hyblaea would suggest that they were indigenous versus Greek.¹⁰ However, there is no evidence found to support the argument that the wives of Greek colonists in Megara Hyblaea were Sicle. 

A closer look at the necropolis reveals no indication of “massive intermarriage between Greek colonists and Indigenous women.”¹¹ Many graves at Megara Hyblaea include one man and one woman—a married pair. Consistent with the colonial practices at the time, it can be assumed that at least the man was Greek. This means that the cultural identity of the woman would determine whether or not the Greeks took indigenous women as wives. Ultimately, there is a huge lack of evidence to suggest that there is any cultural diversity in the female figure. There are very few, if any, indigenous artifacts found in relation to the female burial and there was no significant indicator of ethnic diversity between the funerary treatment of the man compared to the woman. In fact, there was evidence to the contrary as almost every individual was found with a Greek pin—a distinct sign of Greek identity.¹² As a whole, the necropolis reflects that the married pairs buried together probably consisted of two Greek people. There were no Sicle individuals buried in the necropolis of Megara Hyblaea, and only three have ever been found in the area. Therefore, the colonists either traveled with wives or brought Greek women over once the colony had been established.

This evidence is crucial to understanding cultural relationships in Megara Hyblaea in two ways. First, it clearly shows that it was taboo for colonists to marry Sicle women. In the archaeological record, it is difficult to pinpoint the presence of taboo, as evidence can often be found in the absence of something. In this case, the taboo is evident only in asking why there are no instances of cross-cultural marriage if the Greeks and Sicles lived so closely in Megara Hyblaea. Implicitly, this would suggest that the two ethnicities were separated by cultural taboo in this facet of society, which is so central to identity. As a result, future generations were likely “completely Greek” or “completely Sicle.” This ensured that Megara Hyblaea remained culturally separated. 

Second, there is a distinct lack of elements from Sicle culture in the necropolis. The amount of Sicle artifacts found were proportionally less than should be in a city comprising two cultural groups. Because the burial process was so central to identity, this indicates that the Greeks did not attempt to adopt customs, technology, lifestyle, or practices from the Sicles, and vice versa—at least not to the extent to which the other group would include something foreign in their bid to be remembered. The two cultures existed in a peaceful state but did not endorse any particular integration. While the Sicle king Hyblon may have been welcoming, “the two communities do not appear to have maintained special bounds and contacts.”¹³ The separation of both cultures regarding familial life and burial custom only reinforces the notion that “good relations” does not mean hybridization. It can be assumed that this exclusion extends into the daily lives of the Megara Hyblaeans. 

This early cultural co-existence in the grand scheme of Greek colonization illustrates just how far Megara Hyblaea stands from the evolution of what is now known as “Hellenistic” culture. The Greeks’ willingness to live alongside the Sicles “suggests a low degree of Greek identity in early colonial settlements.”¹⁴ While the Megara Hyblaeans were not quite open to adopt traits from the other, they had no issue tolerating the presence of other cultures in and around their city. This was due in part to the circumstances that aligned the Megarians with the Sicles at the foundation of the city. Even so, early colonies that were not tolerant of the indigenous, such as the Chalcidians at Naxos, were not necessarily acting out of cultural superiority. Rather, they used violence to establish the foundation of their colony. This does not justify violence against the indigenous; rather, it reframes it in the practical rather than falsely symbolic purpose. Megara Hyblaea avoided this violence because the Megarians’ political priorities temporarily aligned with those of King Hyblon. This could have easily not been the case, but it would not have changed the lack of Hellenism in early colonial motives.

In light of these arguments, it would be remiss to neglect the potential influence that a history of cultural separation and often violence may have on the eventual emergence of this Hellenistic identity. The ancient Greeks held the past in high esteem, and their cultural past—whether myth or truth—informed their notion of cultural identity and superiority. Therefore, instances of colonial violence against non-Greeks and a consistent separation of cultures even in colonies where Greeks and indigenous people had a “good relationship” could inform later mindsets regarding identity. For example, we eventually see the emergence of cultural hybridization in the adoption of Greek pottery styles among the Sicles—a clear indication of Hellenization at that point in history.¹⁵ However, it is important to keep in mind that this was not the intention of early Greek colonists nor an idea that informed their treatment of indigenous people. Instead, the Hellenistic identity as understood today is a later development that could have been influenced by historic treatment of other cultures in early colonization.

To describe any social interaction in the context of Greek colonization as having “good relations” is a complex and potentially dangerous blanket term. For such an idealized colony as Megara Hyblaea, the reality of the situation is far more nuanced. The study of cultural relationships between the Megarians and the Sicles in Megara Hyblaea paints a picture of a city in which two groups of people lived alongside each other peacefully. Even though the two cultures did not necessarily integrate, their relationship is groundbreaking, as it represents a partnership between Greek colonizers and indigenous people. However, the lack of evidence regarding intermarriage between the Sicles and Greeks in the necropolis suggests there was no significant hybridization between these two cultures. In this way, the peaceful separation between Sicles and Greeks throughout the history of Megara Hyblaea does not indicate the presence of the much later “Hellenistic” identity, but it could potentially signify the gradual movement toward, and historical basis for, the eventual emergence of this notion. The case study of Megara Hyblaea informs how Greeks approached non-Greeks at a time in which Greek identity was less rigid, and acts as an example of “good relations” in the peaceful coexistence of two cultural groups.

Endnotes:

1. A. J. Graham, “Megara Hyblaea and the Sicels,” in Collected Papers on Greek Colonization (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2001), 149.
2. Leone Porciani, “Early Greek Colonies and Greek Cultural Identity: Megara Hyblaia and the Phaeacians,” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 41, no. 2 (2015): 11.
3. Graham, “Megara Hyblaea,” 162.
4. Graham, “Megara Hyblaea,” 159.
5. Graham, “Megara Hyblaea,” 164.
6. Porciani, “Early Greek Colonies,” 14, 17.
7. Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, first paperback edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 35-38.
8. Cassandra C. Tobin, “Landscapes, Temples, and Colonization in Sicily: A Study of Greek Sacred Architecture and Colonization in Sicily to Better Understand Cultural Ethnicity” (ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2015), 79.
9. Reine-Marie Bérard, “Greek and Indigenous People: Investigations in the Cemeteries of Megara Hyblaea,” in 7th Conference of Italian Archaeology, n.d, 7.
10. Bérard, “Greek and Indigenous People,” 4.
11. Bérard, “Greek and Indigenous People,” 8.
12. Bérard, “Greek and Indigenous People,” 6.
13. Bérard, “Greek and Indigenous People,” 8.
14. Porciani, “Early Greek Colonies,” 12.
15. Andrew Farinholt Ward, “Beyond Hellenization: Terracotta Ritual Furniture in Ancient Sicily” (ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2018).

Genevieve Myers (Class of ’25) attends Vanderbilt University where she plans to major in Law, History, and Society as well as Classics and Mediterranean Studies with a minor in International Relations.